Scott v. Wage Earners Loan & Investment Co.

94 S.E. 1021, 147 Ga. 576, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 46
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 18, 1918
DocketNo. 520
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 1021 (Scott v. Wage Earners Loan & Investment Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scott v. Wage Earners Loan & Investment Co., 94 S.E. 1021, 147 Ga. 576, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 46 (Ga. 1918).

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The issues of law and fact in an equity suit were, by consent of the parties, decided by the judge without the intervention of a jury. The judge decided in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, without making a motion for a new trial, filed a direct bill of exceptions which did not, by exhibit or otherwise, set forth any evidence introduced at the hearing, but specified to be sent up to this court “article three of the charter or authority under which said defendant acted as a corporation.” The judge certified the bill of exceptions, and in his certificate recited that it “specifies all of the evidence material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of.” The clerk transmitted with the record a copy of a paper purporting to be “article three of the charter of the Wage Earners Loan and Investment Company.” Eeld:

1. The paper thus transmitted by the clerk with the record can not be considered by this court. Eubank v. Eastman, 120 Ga. 1048 (48 S. E. 426); Williams v. Childers, 145 Ga. 91, 92 (88 S. E. 557).

2. No evidence having been brought up for consideration of this court, no assignment of error which depends upon a consideration of the evidence can-be considered. Pierce v. Felts, 146 Ga. 716 (92 S. E. 212).

Judgment affirmed.'

All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stover v. State
136 S.E.2d 743 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
State Highway Department v. Attaway
102 S.E.2d 514 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Greenfield v. Harvey
11 S.E.2d 776 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Willcox v. Cobb
197 S.E. 517 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Federal Investment Co. v. Ewing
141 S.E. 65 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Jackson v. Muse
140 S.E. 364 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Town of Fairburn v. Edmondson
129 S.E. 108 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
McBurnette v. Huff
114 S.E. 578 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Kunkel v. Tippins
108 S.E. 46 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Leggett v. Pridgen
102 S.E. 829 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 S.E. 1021, 147 Ga. 576, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-wage-earners-loan-investment-co-ga-1918.